32nd_PVT_Dane
ok for on thing shield wall is different from a phalanx and why would you take something from twc forums as a fact
Viking_Dane said:ok for on thing shield wall is different from a phalanx and why would you take something from twc forums as a fact
Viking_Dane said:ok for on thing shield wall is different from a phalanx and why would you take something from twc forums as a fact
Phalanx300 said:Viking_Dane said:ok for on thing shield wall is different from a phalanx and why would you take something from twc forums as a fact
A Hoplite Phalanx is essentially a shieldwall.
You are wrong. The hoplite phalanx, the Skjaldborg, the Sparabara "wall" and the Testudo are ALL shield walls. A shield wall is any mass formation consisting of infantry with large shields, arranged in an overlapping manner.nilloc93 said:no its not
a shieldwall is more comparable to a testudo (turtle) than a Phalanx.
Diavolo said:hey all. Ive been trying a few different SP mods lately, and I figured I'd check out this one, since i used to play the Peloponnesian war on the original M&B several years ago and it was awesome. However, I was quite unsure if I should DL due to the main thread stated very clearly that it was in alpha, so I had actually decided not to dl. Then I saw this thread I just love the fact that some factions may have 4 times as many units as an other and still get slaughtered. (just because most of their units are crap) Im just loving the idea. So now Im downloading the mod. Can't wait to get a giant 2 handed sword and plow through thousands of persian slaves!
Viking_Dane said:the persians them selves werent slaves but the bulk of their army were slaves
Viking_Dane said:the persians them selves werent slaves but the bulk of their army were slaves
This.Roach XI the Magnificent said:Viking_Dane said:the persians them selves werent slaves but the bulk of their army were slaves
No. Their army consisted of three parts:
1. Persians and other Western Iranians - the core of the army, providing the best infantry (yes, infantry, which was grouped in composite units of archers and spearmen) and the best cavalry;
2. Provincial auxiliaries - these varied in quality, but they used cultures that had military culture or infrastructure in place, like Egyptians and Mesopotamians for dedicated heavy infantry, eastern Iranians for archers, etc, etc, thus they were not slaves but good quality troops;
3. Mercenaries - mostly Saka cavalry, but included any kind of foreign troops fighting for money.
MrExpendable said:This.Roach XI the Magnificent said:Viking_Dane said:the persians them selves werent slaves but the bulk of their army were slaves
No. Their army consisted of three parts:
1. Persians and other Western Iranians - the core of the army, providing the best infantry (yes, infantry, which was grouped in composite units of archers and spearmen) and the best cavalry;
2. Provincial auxiliaries - these varied in quality, but they used cultures that had military culture or infrastructure in place, like Egyptians and Mesopotamians for dedicated heavy infantry, eastern Iranians for archers, etc, etc, thus they were not slaves but good quality troops;
3. Mercenaries - mostly Saka cavalry, but included any kind of foreign troops fighting for money.
I can't stand the myth of Persians using slaves as soldiers. The Persian empire abolished slavery of any kind (though it may have been practiced in secret, idk). I think this myth is based on the fact that other late-period Eastern armies used elite cores of slave soldiers (like the Ayyubid Mamlukes and Ottoman Janissaries). However, these were far from being undisciplined hordes.
MrExpendable said:This.Roach XI the Magnificent said:Viking_Dane said:the persians them selves werent slaves but the bulk of their army were slaves
No. Their army consisted of three parts:
1. Persians and other Western Iranians - the core of the army, providing the best infantry (yes, infantry, which was grouped in composite units of archers and spearmen) and the best cavalry;
2. Provincial auxiliaries - these varied in quality, but they used cultures that had military culture or infrastructure in place, like Egyptians and Mesopotamians for dedicated heavy infantry, eastern Iranians for archers, etc, etc, thus they were not slaves but good quality troops;
3. Mercenaries - mostly Saka cavalry, but included any kind of foreign troops fighting for money.
I can't stand the myth of Persians using slaves as soldiers. The Persian empire abolished slavery of any kind (though it may have been practiced in secret, idk). I think this myth is based on the fact that other late-period Eastern armies used elite cores of slave soldiers (like the Ayyubid Mamlukes and Ottoman Janissaries). However, these were far from being undisciplined hordes.
Not really. These were the major troop types found in the army:tigershark said:though it's not so much about the training with Persians it was the sheer variety of troops that they could levy from across the Empire that made their armies very versatile, of course this also meant it took years to prepare for a large campaign like the invasion of Greece, which made it a logistical nightmare.
The average Persian soldier was better drilled and more trained than the average Greek, since the average Persian was actually drilled and trained.